prepare_firmware_validation

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations it discloses the full execution contract: no device contact during prepare, a single burn on start, a required manual restart by the user, version verification plus catalog refresh, automatic backup/acquisition/statistics, and explicit non-actions (no motor start, no mode change, no auto restart). The warning that statistics are not root-cause diagnosis is exactly the kind of expectation-setting an agent needs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Content is front-loaded with the defining trait (offline preview, no device contact), then execution behavior, then guardrails. Every clause carries information — the exclusions in the final sentence are load-bearing safety information, not padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the operational lifecycle and safety boundaries well for a complex orchestration tool. The remaining shortfall is the four undocumented parameters, which an agent must guess at from names alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description has to carry all parameter meaning. It meaningfully maps build_id, problem, hypothesis, channels, sample_period_ms, points, backup_configuration and wait_timeout_s, but leaves port, transport, read_codes and baseline_job_id completely unexplained, which is a substantive gap for a 12-parameter tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening phrase "离线预览一轮验证任务" gives a specific verb (preview/prepare) plus resource (a firmware validation round), and the very next clause "此时不接触设备" separates it from the execution siblings such as start_firmware_validation. An agent can classify this as the dry-run/planning step without reading the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly positions the tool as a pre-execution step ("此时不接触设备", then "启动后…"), which tells the agent to use it before starting a validation run. It stops short of naming start_firmware_validation or cancel_firmware_validation as the alternatives, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.